On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Daniel Fath <daniel.fa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> (If the outcome here is to do XML5, we should make sure the spec is >> polished enough at the WHATWG in order not to a unilateral thing in >> relative secret.) > > What does it mean to be polished enough at the WHATWG?
I was thinking of having resolutions for the issues that are currently warnings in red and multi-vendor buy-in. (Previously, Tab from Google was interested in making SVG parsing non-Draconian, but I have no idea how reflective of wider buy-in that remark was.) > Also how far reaching should spec be? Include Namespaces? I would expect the spec to take a byte stream as input, specify how the encoding is determined, delegate the decoding from bytes to Unicode code points to the Encoding Standard and then define how the code point stream is processed into a DOM tree. (Bonus points for defining a coercion to an XML 1.0 4th ed. Infoset, too, for non-browser use cases.) That would include the processing of Namespaces. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi https://hsivonen.fi/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
